3 ms·

> And tax vacation homes heavily: if you don't live in your house at least 240 days a year (roughly, 8 months), then your property taxes will be 10% of the hous

> And tax vacation homes heavily: if you don't live in your house at least 240 days a year (roughly, 8 months), then your property taxes will be 10% of the house's appraised value. This has been tried. The problem is, the people who can afford to drop $2M+ on house and land for a home they barely visit are not going to be phased by a 10% value tax.

1024core 3y ago
I would not be too sure about that. 10% of 2M is still $200K/year; enough to subsidize the housing for 10 families.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  No, I mean if you're happy buying 7 digit properties just to have available to you a miniscule amount of time, then you probably won't be dissuaded by some higher property taxes.
ryandrake 3y ago
10% isn't the only valid number. If that's not enough to disincentivize bad behavior, then change the number. It's "just" a matter political will. Get creative: Maybe the tax rate should be proportional to the number of days per year the property is unoccupied. If they live in it year-round, their property tax is the minimum. For every day of the year the property is vacant, tax rate goes up by 0.1% or something. Or, maybe their tax rate should be proportional to the number of properties they own. Own one property, and they get the minimum rate. Double the tax rate for every additional property they own and let exponents do their job. For some reason, discussions about solving these problems often boil down to "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!"
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
> The problem is, the people who can afford to drop $2M+ on house and land for a home they barely visit are not going to be phased by a 10% value tax. So, why is that a problem? That's a lot of extra tax money for the city to work with to solve the overall problem from the other end. If that is the only issue, they should do this yesterday.

1024core 3y ago

I would not be too sure about that. 10% of 2M is still $200K/year; enough to subsidize the housing for 10 families.

FireBeyond 3y ago
No, I mean if you're happy buying 7 digit properties just to have available to you a miniscule amount of time, then you probably won't be dissuaded by some higher property taxes.

ryandrake 3y ago

10% isn't the only valid number. If that's not enough to disincentivize bad behavior, then change the number. It's "just" a matter political will. Get creative: Maybe the tax rate should be proportional to the number of days per year the property is unoccupied. If they live in it year-round, their property tax is the minimum. For every day of the year the property is vacant, tax rate goes up by 0.1% or something. Or, maybe their tax rate should be proportional to the number of properties they own. Own one property, and they get the minimum rate. Double the tax rate for every additional property they own and let exponents do their job. For some reason, discussions about solving these problems often boil down to "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!"

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

> The problem is, the people who can afford to drop $2M+ on house and land for a home they barely visit are not going to be phased by a 10% value tax. So, why is that a problem? That's a lot of extra tax money for the city to work with to solve the overall problem from the other end. If that is the only issue, they should do this yesterday.